Thursday, May 31, 2012



As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands; the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches” (Revelation 1:20).

The commission to write the things he saw—the things which are and will be (1:19). It is clear that the seven lampstands are the seven churches. What is not clear is the meaning of the word angels and that has been much debated. Who are they? It should be observed that the word angel has a very wide application in Scripture. It is used of human messengers (Lk 9:52); spirit beings (Luke 1:11); good angels (Heb. 1:13-14); and evil spirits (Jude 6). Are they literal angels? Are they spirits? Or are they messengers?  They certainly are not evil spirits! Bible students are divided, and views center around four suggestions:

  • They are guardian angels of the churches (Heb. 4:14).[1] They point to the fact that the term describes heavenly beings throughout the book of Revelation. They also tie it in with angels having an important part in the Tribulation period, which is true. The idea of a guardian angel for the nation is found in Daniel 2:1. Keith Krell gives the evidence for this view as follows: “First, the normal New Testament meaning of the word “angel” is of spirit beings that minister to believers. Second, the Greek word angelos appears 176 times in the New Testament. In the NASB, the word angelos is only translated “messenger(s)” 7 times. So obviously, the vast majority of these occurrences refer to spirit beings. Third, interpreting the book of Revelation depends heavily on an understanding of the book of Daniel. In Daniel, there is precedence for understanding these angels as possible guardian angels for each congregation (Dan 10:13). Fourth, the author of Hebrews asks the rhetorical question: ‘Are they (angels) not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?’ Fifth, it would be unlikely for John to interpret one symbol by using another. Although angelos can definitely refer to human messengers, would Jesus have chosen that particular word in this context when he was making a rather concise interpretation? Finally, the figure of the lampstands is not used elsewhere in the Scriptures. However, the stars, as symbols of angels, are used elsewhere. Wherever the word star is used symbolically, it is always used of an angel. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments.”[2]  Impressive and solid, but however, not without problems.

    Note carefully these letters are NOT addressed to the churches, but in each case they are addressed to the angel (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). The Greek grammar uses second personal pronouns in chapters 2-3 that look to the individual angels as their subjects and presumably through them to the churches they represent. In the case of the rebukes they are second person singular pronouns that look first to the angel (messenger).[3] For example the words “I hold this against you” (2:4) uses the second personal pronoun, indicating the Lord holds something against the angel. Nowhere in these letters are the angels told to say this to the churches. Thus the sins listed are identified with the angel. Angels cannot partake of the tree of life (2:7), be imprisoned or killed by men (2:10-11), teach false doctrine (2:14, 20), are not written in the Book of Life (3:5). Nor does a guardian angel fall and need to repent (2:5). Garland observes: “If the angel is a heavenly guardian angel, then almost all that is said of him must be strictly representative of the people within the church he guards.”[4] Osborne comments “…strange if the addresses were literal angels.”[5] If these are guardian angels, it appears they are not doing their job. This is a major problem for this view. 

  • Human messengers from each church. Constable writes: “These would have been men such as Epaphroditus and Epaphras, representatives of the churches in Philippi and Colossae, who went to Rome to visit Paul. These representatives may have come to Patmos to visit John and carried Revelation back with them to their respective congregations.”[6] This upholds the meaning of angel to be messenger as seen in Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24, 9:52; and James 2:25. There are three problems with this view: First, Human messengers are never called stars in Scripture. Second, if this is true, God seems to be holding accountable ones that are secondary individuals for the church. Third, there is no indication of representatives being at Patmos in the text.  

  • Related to the view above, is the view that the messenger is the pastor, elder, or leader of the churches. Kistemaker says, “The interpretation that the messengers to the congregations are their pastors makes sense if we view pastors as sent forth and commissioned by Christ. They are responsible for the spiritual development of God’s people.”[7] This would make more sense, for they are responsible for the conditions of the church. However, many point out that Pastors are never referred to as angels. Also that the churches of the first century was run by a plurality of elders, an individual would not be responsibility for the condition of the churches.[8] 

  • That the lampstand and angels are a personification of the churches. Mounce says these are prevailing spirit of the church.[9] Personification is often utilized in Revelation. The personification of angels typifies the spiritual character of the churches and Christ is addressing that character. The problem is that the term angel can mean a literal angel or mean messenger, but not spirit. I do not see any evidence in the text for this personification.

As one looks at the text, the following elements are observed: First, the word angel must retain some connection with its meaning, since a double personification is unlikely, especially in light there is no double personification of the lampstand. Second, in both the lampstand and the stars are clearly stated as to their meaning (churches/ angels). The word angello literally means “to deliver a message.”[10] Thus, the word could be translated Angel or messenger, both are valid translations. It is interesting that Bullinger brings out that although the angel of the church/ assembly is never used in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s epistles. It is used in the synagogue where there was the Sheliach Tsibbur (angel of the Assembly), who was the mouthpiece of the congregation.[11] He was the messenger of God to the assembly. In these letters, John uses Jewish and Old Testament terms in writing to these churches (i.e. synagogue; tribulation; overcomes; teaching of Balaam, Balak; hidden manna; Jezebel; etc.; all Jewish imagery). Could it be that John is using this Jewish term for the human messengers in the churches of his day? Third, what is said of the angel is also said of the churches. Garland notes:

In most cases, the grammar of the letters to each church implicates each individual angel. This is reflected by the preponderance of verb forms in the second-person singular. Yet the things which are said to the angel include aspects which could only be true of the wider church membership.[12]

In light of this, it appears the best solution is to take the word as messenger, thus being human messengers to the church, namely the Pastor or leader. What Christ says to the messenger as an individual is also true of the entire church.

[2]  Keith Krell, Awesome and Awestruck (Revelation 1:9-20), Electronic Media
[3]  Thomas, REVELATION, 1:117.
[5]  Osborne, REVELATION 98.
[6]  Constable, NOTES ON REVELATION, 18; also the view in the Scofield Bible, 1331.
[7]  Kistemaker, REVELATION103. Also the view of Walvoord, REVELATION, 53; Tenney, INTERPRETING REVELATION, 55.
[8]  Garland, 197.
[9]  Mounce, REVELATION, 86.
[10]  W.E. Vine, “angels,” EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY, 1:55.
[11]  E.W. Bullinger, THE APOCALYPSE, 67; also see Craig S. Keener, IVP BIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTARY: NT, 168.
[12]  Garland, 198.

Saturday, May 26, 2012


We think that to have an active part in the worship service, one must preach, teach, or sing. However that is not true. Listening is an active part of the worship service. George Sweazey reminds us: “The hearers play the leading role in the preaching drama. Everything depends on what they do. They come for the great adventure of experiencing more of eternal truth, and they leave for the even greater adventure of living by that truth. No occupation could be more important.”[1]

We who sit in the pew tend to forget our role in worship. While the preacher spends time in preparing the sermon, few of us spend time preparing to listen to the sermon. Why is it that in church our minds are at other places during the sermon? We get sleepy? We come so easily distracted? We do not follow along in our Bibles? There may be other reasons for this, but I submit that the major reason is that we are not prepared to listen. Here are some keys that I have learned:

  1. Be physically ready to listen. What do I mean? I mean I must be rested and well fed, and have my attitude in check. If I stay up too late, or do not eat something before I go to church it affects my listening. Even my attitude affects listening. Studies show that listening is greatly affected by our attitudes. Attitudes are a part of our physical well being. Attitudes that hinder are that of bias, worry, fear, and anger. Good listening is hard work for many times there are objects that must be overcome in listening. That good listening is work can be verified by physical elements during listening. Tests show that concentrated listening increases the heart rate, blood flow, and slightly increased body temperature. It is a physical activity and we need to be physically ready.
  2. Be prayerfully ready. That means pray. Pray for the preacher, but pray also for you as a listener. Psalm 119 has an example prayer for this. “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law” (119:18).  
  3. Stay focused. This is obvious, but hard to do. Here are some clues to use to help you stay focused. Keep eye contact with the preacher. Do not try to outguess the preacher. By that I mean to do get ahead of him thinking you know what is next (even if you may be correct). In doing so you are not listening nor focused on the preacher’s present point.
  4. Take notes of the sermon. Studies show that you retain only 25 to 50% of what you hear. Studies show that taking notes and the use of PowerPoint increases what is retained. While some may consider this a distraction, the alert mind is able to multitask—listen and write at the same time.  It does help retention.
  5. Do not be judgmental while listening. Our personal filters, assumptions, judgments, and beliefs can distort what we hear. As a listener, our role is to understand what is being said. This may require you to reflect on what is being said and ask questions after the sermon.  
Remember as the preacher is preaching, the Holy Spirit is speaking. Our main concern should be hearing what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us.

[1]  George E. Sweazey, PREACHING THE GOOD NEWS, [Prentice-Hill, 1976], 310.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

The Way We Were

Exposition of Ephesians 2:1-3

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:1-3).

The first observation one needs to understand is the difference between the (NASB translation (above), and the KJV that has the words “you hath he quickened.” The KJV has the words in italics, which means they were added by the translators, and are not in the Greek text. They are omitted in modern translations and rightfully so.

Our Past Condition (2:1)—“you were dead in trespasses and sins.”  Before we were blessed by God in redemption, we were dead in trespasses and sins. The pronoun “you” is emphatic, and indicates those to whom he is writing. He is speaking to believers. Their past condition was “being dead.” It is a present participle indicating they were existing and continually in a state of spiritual death. It portrays our condition by our nature before God’s action. Of course, death here is not speaking of physical death, but spiritual death (Col. 2:13); speaking of those who are alienated from God. Death means separation from either the spirit from the body (James 2:26), or the spirit separated from God (Isa. 59). Being dead is further described with the prepositional phrase “in trespasses and sin.” There are three possible ways to understand this phrase. It could indicate cause, instrumental, or locative. It is best to take it as locative (in the sphere of). “The ‘trespasses and sins’ do not merely indicate the cause of death…, but they are descriptive also of the state of death. They represent not simply the instrument, but as the same time the condition of death” notes Eadie (Ephesians, 119). Men, outside Christ, are dead in trespasses and sins for all are sinners. Doctrinally this is known as total depravity. This does not mean man is as bad as he can be; rather he is as bad off as he can be. He is lost in his sin. The only differences between unsaved men are the deepness of their sin. All have sinned (Rom. 3:23), all are guilty. But thank God, there is also grace for all (Rom. 3:24, Eph. 2:8-10).

Our Past Consequences (2:2-3).  Paul giving our past standing now goes on to describe our state. He states “in which formerly walked” (2:2; cf. Col. 3:7). The preposition is one of sphere, referring back to being dead spiritually. Now he speaks of our state of conduct in that condition. The Greek word for “walk” is peripateo, meaning to walk around in the ordinary. It is a metaphor for our ordinary conduct. It speaks of the ordinary course of life of one who is not a believer. Their walk was according to three operative standards or forces:

·         The Direction of the World—“according to the course of this world” (2:2). The word translated according (kata), indicates the standard by which action occurs. Eadie says it usually expresses conformity (p. 122). Thus, our lifestyle was in conformity to the standards of the world, not God’s standards. We followed the world’s course. The word course is the Greek word aion, normally translated age. Thus, this phrase is literally “according to the age of this world.”  This is no doubt a reference to this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). Lincoln suggests the translation of “this world-age.” (Ephesians, 95). It speaks of being controlled by the age or course of worldly norms and values, which is hostile to God. It is the governing principle which controls the world. It is the spirit of the age, by which man is moved along on his downward slide from God.

·         The Dictates of Satan—“according to the prince of the power of the air” (2:2). Again the word according indicates an additional conformity that the unsaved exercise. The word prince is the Greek word archon, conveying the idea of first or chief, denoting a ruler or prince. This is a clear reference to Satan (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; John 12:31).  Satan is the prince or ruler of this world. The word exousia (power) denotes authority, right to act, realm, and power. It is probably best to understand it in this context as realm. He rules over the realm of the air.  Job (1:7) says Satan goes to and fro on earth. He controls this evil world (1 John 5:19).

Hoehner observes: “The unregenerate not only walk according to the values of the present age but also under the control of the leader who rules over this evil world” (Ephesains, 320-321). This is clear from the rest of the text—“of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience’ (1:2). This phrase describes the preceding clause. There can be little question that this phrase indicates men are controlled by the prince and power of the air. We are in subjection both by environment (domain of the air) and internally (spirit). He works in the unsaved. He controls their spirit by blindness (2 Cor. 4:4) and lies (John 8:44).

The phrase “sons of disobedience” refers to man’s natural character and condition. The Greek word apeitheia (disobedience) means “unwillingness to be persuaded, and expressive either of disobedience in general, or of unbelief which is only one form of disobedience” (Hodge, Ephesians, 102).  Paul takes up the phrase again in Ephesians 5:6, to show that they desire and will receive God’s wrath.

·         The Desires of the Flesh—“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of the flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath” (2:3). The word formerly is used in three areas in this chapter. Our former walk (2:1), our former life (2:3), and our former state as Gentiles as being far off (2:11, 13).  The “we also” or we all, is a universal and all inclusive phrase that includes Paul the author and the readers, and expands out to all men everywhere. All men who are unsaved live in conformity to these elements. The “among whom” joins this clause with the immediately preceding phrase “in sons of disobedience.” All men are in this condition by nature.

In times past “we all lived in the lust of the flesh” (1:3). Here is the main verb—anastrepho, meaning literally a compound word ‘again’ and “turn,” meaning return, to turn back, to turn again. Figuratively it is indicates to conduct. It depicts our lifestyle before we were converted and saved. The sphere we lived in was that of the lust of the fresh. The word translated lust is epithumia, denotes a strong desire of any kind. It marks the sphere of activity of the unsaved. The word flesh is always used in a metaphorical sense by Paul. It denotes our nature, and signifies our fallen state, not the material skin we are encased in. Unlike the other two forces, which are external, this is an internal force—our own nature. Flesh is not to be understood merely as our sensuous nature, but our corrupted nature we have from birth.

Therefore, man is always “indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (1:3). The text is a present participle indicating this is a continuous action or pursuit of the natural man. This corrupted nature of man desires sin (Rom. 6:12), impurity (Rom. 1:24), covetousness (Rom. 7:7-8), and is not obedient to the will of God (1 Peter 4:2). This phrase defines how the lust of the flesh manifests itself—in indulging it the things satisfying and fulfilling to the soulish or fleshly nature of man. But that is not all, Paul adds “and of the mind.” The word mind is the Greek word dianoia, meaning the thinking process, thoughts, or reflection. It is not just carrying out the desires of the flesh, but also the mind, the corrupted mental process. It is the mind-set of the natural man, which opposes God (cf. Rom. 8:5-7). Since man lives in this sphere of influence, he can not help but carry out the wishes of the flesh and mind.

We “were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest” (1:3). Paul ends this section with a parallel of verse 1. He ends were he begins. As “we were” death in sin, also we “were” by nature children of wrath. This last “were” speaks of the result of man’s condition and conduct—children of wrath. This is a statement of status. It is the present status of sinful man. This status came by nature. The word nature (phusis) indicates “our natural constitution or condition as opposed to what is acquired” (Hodge, 107). It is not what we became, but what we are by birth. It is by nature, (not on the account of nature), that men are the children of wrath. Being children of wrath is genitive of destination, which indicates man is by nature moving toward the wrath of God. It does not describe man in terms of attributes or character (wrathful children), but speaks of being destined for wrath. It describes a status for all mankind outside of Christ. It can only be changed by faith in Christ.

“But God” (v.4) intervened by His grace, and believers are no longer in this condition.  It is the way we were—but no longer. God intervened to give us a new status by grace through faith. We are now sinners saved by grace (Eph. 2:8-9) with a new status—made alive with Christ, raised up and seated with Him (Eph. 2:4-7).

Friday, May 11, 2012

History and Dispensationalism

What is this world coming to? Ever hear that question? It is mostly asked in the sense of confusion. Something happens that seems to throw our sense of direction and morality off, and in confusion or frustration we ask, “What is this world coming to?” But in reality that is a fair question to ask. The answer is what can be defined as our philosophy of history and our answer to the quest for meaning. Every generation faces that question and search, not only as a society, but as a person.

What is a philosophy of history? It is a systematic interpretation of universal history in accordance with a principle by which historical events and successions are unified and directed toward ultimate meaning.[1]

By this definition, we can see that the Bible gives a philosophy of history, although it is not a textbook on the philosophy of history. However it meets the requirements that are necessary for a philosophy of history.

  1. It explains the why of historic events in an organized way.
  2. It covers the whole scope of history from beginning to end.
  3. It must have a unifying principle which ties history together.
  4. It assigns ultimate meaning to history.
The Bible fulfills these requirements. Briefly, the Bible shows that history is controlled by God in the outworking of His purpose. The events of history are really a struggle between rebellion, redemption, and restoration. It covers the beginning and ending of history (Genesis to Revelation). The ultimate meaning or goal of history is the redemption of man for the glory of God.

Dispensationalism has a direct relationship to the Biblical philosophy of history. Dispensationalism or the study of dispensations aimed at developing the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of God’s eternal purpose. That eternal purpose is expressed in Ephesians 3:11, “This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord.” While there is much that could be said about this verse, the one thing it clearly does is tell us that God has a plan and purpose. It climaxed (but did not end) with the work of Christ Jesus our Lord. Notice the verse does not say that this was God’s plan in its entirety. But it was in accordance with His purpose. His purpose is still being worked out. “That in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace…” (Eph. 2:7). What dispensations do are identify the stages of the outworking of God’s purpose and plan in history as revealed in the Bible.

[1] Karl Lowith, MEANING IN HISTORY (University of Chicago Press, 1949), 1.

Thursday, May 10, 2012


Walter Liefeld says “The essential nature of expository preaching…is preaching that explains a passage in such a way as to lead the congregation to a true and practical application of the passage.[1] This is a good point. It means that expository preaching has two vital aspects: It is Bible (or passage) centered. It is also people centered. Both aspects must be present to have true expository preaching take place.

This means three things: (1) The preacher must be a student of the Word, as well as a student of people. He must know how to combine what he knows of the Word with the ability to explain it to meet the needs of the people. (2) Running commentary of the Word is not preaching the Word. Commentary aims at the head, but rarely hits the heart. It may feed the sheep, but it rarely guides the sheep. (3) Practical application without explanation of the Word is short lived. It may guide the sheep, but it does not feed the sheep.

The benefits of true expository preaching are:

  1. It fulfills our mandate to preach the Word. It confronts others with God’s word, not our opinion. It gives the message of the Word hermeneutical integrity, cohesiveness, and moves the message and hearer in the direction the author intended. Thus feeding the sheep.
  2. It guides the sheep giving the purpose, meaning, or function of the text in the practical setting of the hearer. It reveals God’s will to the listener.
  3. It gives the preacher the authority and power, for He is preaching the Word of God. It is not the authority of the preacher, but the authority of the Word that is communicated. Merrill Unger warns that “The divine authority and power which rest upon the true herald of the Word of God must be continually guarded against loss or diminution.[2] Expository preaching helps guard the preacher.
  4. It limits subjectivism. It presents squarely the Word of God with objectivity that must be taught. It also prevents preaching on hobbyhorses.
  5. It aids in the production of well-taught mature Christians. Maturity comes by increased knowledge and experience. Expository preaching provides knowledge and practical application to guide our experience.
  6. It helps guard the preaching from attack of being obtrusive. Good systematic preaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit guards the preaching from substituting subjects to correct situations that will stir the pot of discontent. If ones’ preaching is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will lead in the passage to address those issues without appearing that one went out of his way to preach on the subject. It “can include touchy subjects in the course of sequential exposition without being obtrusive” notes Liefeld.[3]
  7. It gives control of the pulpit not to the preacher, but to God and His Word. The preacher’s message is controlled by what the Word of God teaches and says, not what the preacher thinks. True exposition is God centered and controlled by the Holy Spirit. It explains a passage in such a way as to lead the congregation to a true and practical application of the passage.

[1]  Walter L. Liefeld, NEW TESTAMENT EXPOSITION, [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1984], 6.
[2]  Merrill Unger, PRINCIPLES OF EXPOSITORY PREACHING, [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1955],
[3]  Liefeld, 11.

Saturday, May 5, 2012


Brief Notes on Luke #1

Luke is the longest Gospel, in fact, the longest book in the New Testament. It is 1,151 verses long. He writes as a historian, producing the first two volume work on the history of Christianity covering the first 60 some years. The Gospel is the first volume. (His other volume is the book of Acts). The Gospel of Luke spans from the birth of Christ to His resurrection. That Luke, the companion of Paul (Col. 4:14), has been designated as its author springing from the earliest times. That identification has remained solid unto this day. In studying Luke there are three things to keep in mind:

1. Luke researched his subject carefully to present a historically accurate record. He tells us this up front (Luke 1:1-4). Luke was not one of the original followers of Jesus. He did not know Jesus and His earthly ministry from any personal knowledge. In many respects Luke is the first searcher for this historical Jesus. Thus, he did personal research before taking on the task of putting pen to paper.  His research consisted of:

·         Investigating existing accounts. These clearly included other written material. Most scholars would agree that this included the gospels of Matthew and Mark, but may not be limited to them only.  However, this does not discount existing unwritten accounts, such as oral tradition.

·         Eyewitnesses accounts. These no doubt included the Apostles, as well as others that experienced the ministry of Christ on a historical level. No doubt Luke’s association with Paul brought him into contact with many who became source material. We cannot rule out the immediate family of Jesus himself, since many scholars feel that Luke presents the genealogy of Mary and is written more from her perspective.

2. The Gospel of Luke is often referred to as the “Gentile” gospel. We know for sure this gospel was written to a Gentile—Theophilus. There is a strong likelihood that Luke was not a Jew, but a Gentile. Most scholars hold this view, based on the following:[1]

  • Colossians 4:10-11, 14. Luke is not listed with the Jews, but separate from them.
  • Acts 1:19 where a Semitic name is given, and it is spoken of as “their” language, indicating that the author is not Semitic.
  • His name Luke is a Greek form of a Latin name.
This makes Luke the only Gentile author in the New Testament.

It seems clear that Luke wrote for Gentiles. Luke dates from the reigning Roman Emperors and governor. There is not a strong emphasis on Old Testament confirmation or Jewish prophecy. He seldom quotes from the Old Testament. Hebrew words are given their Greek equivalent. There are common Jewish terms that never appear (ex. Rabbi, using the term Master instead). There is more universal approach to Luke. The gospel of the kingdom is for the world proclaimed through Israel (2:14, 32; 3:6). Barclay observes “There is nothing in the gospel that a Gentile could not grasp and understand.”[2]

3. Luke presents Jesus as Savior. Each Gospel writer presents Jesus in a unique way: Matthew shows Jesus as King; Mark shows Jesus as Servant; and now Luke presents the Son of Man as Savior and Redeemer. From the beginning Mary is told to name the baby as Jesus; i.e. Savior. The Angels announced at His birth: “A Savior, which is Christ the Lord” (Lk. 2:11). Simeon upon holding the child declares that in Him he had “seen salvation which God prepared” (4:16-32). The word salvation is absent from both Mark and Matthew. However, Luke uses the word 6 times (1:69, 71, 77; 2:30; 3:6; 19:9). Luke presents salvation that is available to all. “Luke…lays more stress on the fact that Jesus came to accomplish a universal redemption. He depicts Christ not so much as the Messiah of the Old Testament but as the Redeemer of the whole world.”[3]

[1]  Darrell Bock, LUKE, 1:6

[2]  William Barclay, DBS: LUKE, xv.

[3]  Norval Geldenhuys, NICNT: THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 43.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012



The LIVING STONE on which we build (1 Pet. 2:5)
The LIVING BREAD on which we feed (John 6:51)
The LIVING WAY by which we draw near (Heb. 10:20)
The LIVING HOPE for which we wait (1 Pet. 1:3)